How galaxy-brain smart must Shakespeare have felt when he took the H at the end of Amleth and put it in front of the word to make the new name Hamlet? Pure literary genius if you ask me.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

The goat

@vitorafmonteiro

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling Because he was the behhhhhhhh-st. I'll check myself out. I regret nothing.

@threethrushes

2 жыл бұрын

My name is Thamle, son of Ethaml, son of Letham, son of Mletha, son of Amleth, son of Hamlet, son of Letmah, son of Mathel, son of Thelma, son of Thaelm, son of Aelthm, son of Mlthea.

@Ramsey276one

2 жыл бұрын

I immediately remembered Kingdom Hearts Irulam Droul Lea Isa

@ransakreject5221

2 жыл бұрын

Here I was thinking “Retep” was the first time that was done.

I'm not entirely sold on his uncle's "goodness". There was the scene where Amleth kills his mother and she flat out thanks him. That very scene made me think that what she had said before about loving his uncle and her children was a lie. Her current life under his uncle was just as bad as under his father. That cycle of being forced to go from man to man was finally broken by her death. I believe that is why she stated during that scene that once Amleth killed his uncle, she would become his queen. She believed she was stuck in this endless cycle of being forced into a marriage with a power hungry sadist. To me, just that one line, along with how she was truly struggling against being taken at the beginning of the movie, recontextualized that scene between mother and son.

@reikun86

2 жыл бұрын

Not to mention that the Uncle was fixated on Olga, and tried to claim her as his own.

@hannahd.3313

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, plus think about how he treated his slaves. When they were freed, they could have run away, yet they chose to go out of their way to burn the entire farm to the ground. When you find out that Fjollnir came from slave parents and Amleth's mother was a slave herself, you begin to wonder whether the "benevolent leader" role was just an act, in order to prove to themselces that they are worthy of their position - when in fact they are not. This would make sense with the underlying theme of the movie that in a sense kings are born and not made.

@tuckershuff1441

2 жыл бұрын

I interpereted her 'thank you' as a way of expressing graditude towards being his first kill. She was grateful that she died before her son or husband and never had to grieve them. Idk. That was my interperetation.

@kikima258

2 жыл бұрын

Go back to that scean again she actualy thanked him for giving her a quick death by going strait to the heart

@tuckershuff1441

2 жыл бұрын

@@kikima258 ah ok.

The gunnar thing seemed like it happened in the heat of the moment, but as for the ascension at the end, I think it's fair to take in the cultural context of the characters, , Im pretty sure amleth was obliged to avenge his father whatever it took, also, and correct me if im mistaken, but you go to valhalla for dying in battle, the side you fight for is irrelevant, because odin wants capable warriors to fight for him at ragnarok, not for leading a good life free from sin.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

While true, the issue is that does the ending frame it as if Amleth is being "rewarded" for his final act, or is he just lost completely in his delusional fantasy of avenging his father? If it were the latter, I'd def take that as a solid ending, but the vision of Olga, the music, and just the whole framing of the ending feels too "spectacle", thus it undermines the possible subversive or nihilistic ending.

@dancreary3340

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling I feel like it's framed like he is rewarded for killing his uncle on the grounds that the supernatural is real in the world of the story, there were forces acting in his favor that go beyond interpretation as just delusions framed from his perspective, I only saw it once, but I want to say that there were scenes showing the result of olga's magic beyond dosing the enemy with mushrooms, like when someone other than amleth was unable to draw the sword during the day, or when the ravens helped him get loose, if I remember correctly.

@keeran697

2 жыл бұрын

@@dancreary3340 I believe the ravens freeing him was more either connected to his father who was known as the Raven King, and/or Odin himself who is often represented by ravens intervening to aid him in reaching his destined fate.

@keeran697

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, so much of the film and particularly that last part is showing us how clearly bad these decisions are from any rational point of view, but rather only make sense from that very specific religious and cultural context wherein he felt like it was his only option. That said also as a character he's really not too clever, and I don't think he's meant to be

@keeran697

2 жыл бұрын

*meant to say, the We're Not So Different podcast has an excellent review of the film which informed my comments and echoes yours

What I loved about the Northman, as a PhD student on Icelandic Literature, is this: the Sagas are often vexing, anticlimactic and unconvincing in mythical terms, but they always come across as human. Amleth's foolish pulsion of saving Gunnar as a child Is stemmed from pure instinct, and predicts the animality that would come from him afterwards. I believe that the film Is very well constructed if seen through the POV of Eggers and Sjón (co-writer of the film and the 2nd most famous Icelander alive), as the cinematic translation of an Icelandic Saga, but It can also serve as a warning about how Western audiences are too accustomed to usual narratives to notice anything else.

I hope this film gets a Director's Cut one day. Eggers truly deserved to have his original vision presented unadulterated. The movie as it is now is still incredible, but reading up on it I can tell what we got is not what was originally intended from an artistic perspective.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed. It is something I REALLY want to see after reading up on it.

@bumptiousbuffoon7824

2 жыл бұрын

A Director's Cut would be excellent. I'd love to see what his original vision was.

@NovaFilmsCo

2 жыл бұрын

+1 Directors cut! I would buy the blu-ray instantly.

@birdsamora9925

2 жыл бұрын

Wait what!

@reikun86

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly, Eggers gave up the right to final cut per agreement with Focus Features.

The movie is trying to show a story with a different moral compass but still through our eyes. Amleth has sworn vengeance and this was paramount in the Old Norse world. Blood feuds were the usual way conflict was solved, and that was one of the reasons Christianity took hold among the Norse kings, it toned down the inter clanic violence. So Amleth needs to honor his social codes, and he only thinks about letting them go when he is confronted with a different moral compass (that of Olga). The fact that he will have to kill Gunnar is unfortunately something the movie would have needed to address, because there youre totally right, it would have been a high dramatic point, kill the kid who is essentially you, or let him go and become a hunted Fjölnir. Still thers a lot of love about the film. Like that he was Hamlet then he took the name Beowulf (or an Old Norse cognate) and then he assumes the role of Grendel.

Haven’t seen the film, but that weirdly, apparently contradictory up-lifting ending actually checks out with most Nordic sagas and epic poems. Just a different sense of morality that’s alien to us, ig Maybe I’d ought to watch it myself, but why does Amleth *need* to kill his uncle to protect his unborn children? If he’s already been deposed and is now a simple ceorl, then Amleth’s offspring aren’t a threat, are they? So there’s no need to “clean house,” right?

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

I think it’s because he killed his elder son. After that Fjolnir will never allow him to go free. But the issue is then he has to kill his younger son too.

@sualtam9509

Жыл бұрын

That's not how blood feuds work. Basically two clans kill eachother until the original reason is forgotten and then keep killing eachother still. Blood for blood. This sums up most of Icelandic history and the reason to write these sagas was to remember who to hate and kill and why. There is always a case to clean house. To paraphrase Machiavelli: Never injure an enemy, always kill him. Thus never only kill the leader of a clan, always eradicate every last one of them including their dogs. In a society based on blood feud, the uncle must avenge his slain family by killing Amleth's family. If you don't, then you are weak and your life can be taken without consequences. In an extremely violent society where killing someone is a normal occurence this can happen at anytime for a miniscule reason. A simple argument might be enough.

@HladgerdKissinger

Жыл бұрын

@@sualtam9509 Absolutely. The general gist of many sagas is that one member of a family escapes an attack, only to return and slaughter the perpetrator's clan, loved ones, dogs, sheep, cattle, slaves, etc.

I love the unconventionality of the film (in terms of the culture it portrays). This movie feels as if it were truly made by Vikings for Vikings. Take Gladiator for example, which is a truly brilliant film, but feels as if it were made by Romans for regular people of our time.

Honestly, it feels like you're talking with a "Christian" or too modern view of morality. His girlfriend comes from a town he destroyed, even selling them into slavery for the hell of it, looking for a "good vs. bad" dynamic, even before the mother's revelation, seems counterproductive. Besides, most of the mystical themes in the film are semi-plausible but never explicitly stated as fact, his epic fight for an enchanted sword is just him picking it up and the skeleton crumbling into ashes, never mind that our protagonist died morally bankrupt, of course he would feel as if he had conquered his destiny and deserved valhalla, that's his perspective, you could even say that his mother was right, his train of thought is so basic that not even a hint of self-reflection occurs on his last breaths.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

I like the idea that the ending COULD be read as Amleth being so delusional that he doesn't realize he is no better than Fjolnir or Gudrun in the end, arguably even worse considering his killing of Gunnar, but I don't think this is communicated well in the finale, especially since Amleth's look of horror following Gunnar's death. It is clearly meant to imply he is in turmoil over doing so, but he doesn't seem to reflect on it in the finale.

@randomnerd3402

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling I'd like to butt in and add that Robert Eggers unfortunately didn't get final cut, so that could explain some of the issues

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

👆👆👆

@McKJacker

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling But its not a question of him being delusional. Because of his cultural conditioning in a violent warrior culture, he is sociologically compelled to act out his vengeance. Although his actions may appear delusional to a modern audience with modern values, his subjectivity is complete different from our own. From Amleth's specific point in time, his actions are completely rational. His sense of destiny, and spiritual obligation to his father is a reality that is felt in a way that is completely alien to modern viewers. What Eggers tries to do with his films is present historical cultures from their point of view, instead of moralizing them from a contemporary perspective.

The way I see it, we're seeing a lot of the movie from Amleth's subjective perspective, so of course he sees himself as the hero straight through the end, even if he does horrific shit. He's only ascending to Valhalla at the end because he sees himself ascending to Valhalla in his dying moments, still deluded into thinking everything he did was worth it in the end. So of course in his eyes, the triumphant good guy victory is playing out in his biased mind.

@kikima258

2 жыл бұрын

Exacly the movie is from ameleth pov we even see how much he glorified his father only seeing him as a loving and caring man but as the movie goes on we see that this is far from the truth his own brother refered to him as a monster and his wife hated him to the point of hating her own son because it's his

I dont think he was intending on killing Gunnar, but I dont think this leads to a "massive contrivance", since I feel like he went back less to really protect his family, and more because he never truly let go of his quest for revenge. He was foretold to choose between hatred for his enemies of love for his allies, and while for a bit he was trying to choose the latter, the instant an excuse for the former appeared, he instantly jumped at it, he was simply consumed by his hate for fjolnir

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Eh the issue is that he was willing to forgo and only decided to go back after learning Olga was pregnant. Thus he would need to kill Gunnar to accomplish his mission.

I honestly kind of loved the third act of The Northman after my SECOND viewing... I know the final battle is kind of lackluster and WAY too quick but I do love how it left me feeling. The whole film, you're on Amleth's side. You want him to avenge his father (regardless of his uncle's current situation). Then, Amleth kills his mother and half-brother and you see his uncle (done checking other tabs for spelling dudes name) standing there already defeated and ready/wanting to die. This sets up a battle where Amleth's uncle goes full Beserker rage and fights without a single fuck given about death! When the final blows kill both Amleth and his uncle, you're almost happy that BOTH men got an honorable death! I like how Amleth spends the third act doing things for someone other than himself. The whole film, I'm wondering how his Uncle will stand a chance in a fight vs Amleth but they set it up nice for Amleth's uncle to be in a believable state that he could possibly defeat Amleth PS: I don't think Amleth WANTED to kill his younger half-brother but just did out of reflex. He's upset about it because he says he doesn't want to kill women and children... I don't think Amleth really cared about becoming a King with a kingdom, he just wanted to save his family and avenge his father. He would have been fine with a future battle with his half-brother because he understands the motivation to avenge your family

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

That's sort of what I am leaning towards too, that he never intended to kill Gunnar. The issue with that is that if he went back and killed Fjolnir, it leaves the contrivance of Gunnar still being alive to one day seek revenge. If the film emphasized this, that the cycle of revenge would continue, that would be pretty cool.

@phatnana2379

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling Exactly! I should have finished the ENTIRE video before commenting haha! I am fine with the movie as a whole BUT... I definitely agree with your idea of the movie kind of copping out! If ending the cycle of violence is really what Amleth wants to achieve, killing Gunner is absolutely a crucial element to guaranteeing that happening! I believe it has a lot to do with The Northman being (and even basically being marketed as) Egger's "most accessible" film. I BELIEVE Eggers had Final-Cut of the film but, even so, getting that $70mil plus profit back at the box-office may have been a little harder with Amleth actively seeking to murder a child haha! I understand what you're saying completely and never thought of it! Great vid as always

@simonriley4131

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling the cycle of revenge thing was exactly where I thought the movie was going the first time I watched it, especially with the parallels between Amleth and Fjolnir and Olga and Gudrun. I was one hundred percent sure that the movie would end with Gunnar seeking revenge

@ladyblue5004

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytellingBut he straight up tells Olga this at the boat though, that the cycle will continue and his children will be in danger. That's why he decides to go back. Not because he still wants revenge, but because he needs to protect his unborn child. That's ultimately what makes him a hero, his motivation changes from bloodlust and vengeance to love for his kin.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

@@ladyblue5004 except this glosses over the fact that he would need to kill Gunnar to ensure their safety.

Really love your analysis of this dude. Personally i loved the 1st and second acts too but you were right on the money with how the 3rd felt like it kind of ruined the feel

Approaching an Old Norse Saga with 21st Century morals is doing it a disservice. Many figures like Egil Skallagrimson commit dubious deeds by our standards. As for the film its pretty clear Amleth didnt mean to outright kill Gunnar based off his reaction. Sure the film skirted around that by making it an accident. It may have been written that way because modern audiences wouldnt react well to our protagonist doing that. So I give it a pass, it definitely does not ruin the third act in my view.

I didn't see going to Valhalla as an inherently moral death

The movie is telling the story of an immensely brutal world, as the video states.. And in that world you get to go to Valhalla if you die fighting. That's it. There's no need for good deeds. Heroism = fighting to the death in this world. I think the fatal flaw identified here largely rests on the author projecting his conception of heroism onto the ending. But throughout the film we are seeing the world from the perspective of its inhabitants. They believe that fighting to the death gets you a ride to Valhalla, irrespective of the morality of your intentions. Thus, the film isn't taking sides like the video suggests.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

The issue with this reading is that upon killing Gunnar, Amleth is clearly horrified, thus he seems to realize that he has done something just as heinous as those he has sought to kill in the end, yet he never seems to reflect on this. If the ending DID portray him as simply completely delusional that he was so focused on his fate and ascending to Valhalla, that could work, but his reaction after Gunnar's death seems to undermine this.

@bumptiousbuffoon7824

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling I agree there. I too wonder if that was one of the scenes that was subject to studio interference. It clashes with Amleth's final vision of Olga and the children, and his apparent relief at having secured their safety. Either he is a delusional maniac, or the ends justify the means. Not this weird middle ground.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Well said. Again, as weird as it sounds, if Amleth killed Gunnar in cold blood, displaying he was so hell bent on achieving his "fate" that he didn't even realize the monster he became, THAT would be based.

@kikima258

2 жыл бұрын

I didn't see any attempt from the director to paint ameleth revenge as heroic by the end of the movie it's simply the depiction of the viking's beleives you die in battle you go to valhala it doesn't matter which side you are on odin simply wants great worriors to fight for him during ragnarok and valhala isn't considered paradis

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

@@kikima258 which works but then that leaves the cop out of how Gunnar’s death plays out dissapointing

I didn’t like the fact that the “you must choose between kindness for you kin or hate for your enemy” turned into, “actually, you can do both” I was reminded of HEAT when De Niro is driving off at the end to get on the plane and leave with his girlfriend to New Zealand and he gets a call saying someone he wants revenge on is staying at a hotel near the airport. He’s faced with the “do i get out of here or do I get my revenge?” question. He picks revenge and it results in his death. He doesn’t get both, and the revenge doesn’t turn noble. The revenge costs him his escape. The Northman feels like a cop-out in giving an easy both, revenge and it’s the way to protect your kin… and it’s noble. A great ending would have been Amleth escapes with Taylor Joy and the final act is him as an old man facing off against his half brother who has come for him.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

That ending would be based af!

@stephenrochester6309

2 жыл бұрын

Spot on IMO.

It would have been an especially painful decision to kill Gunnar because earlier in the film Amleth head butts The Mountain to death to save his half-brother''s life. The fact that it is unclear whether or not Amleth intended to kill Gunnar actually works thematically, because while the film is certain and unwavering in its brutality Amleth is portrayed as morally gray, perhaps the most so out of any of the characters we see. I might be reading into this incorrectly, but in the scene where the vikings light a building full of women and children on fire, Amleth's face has a solemn look instead of a triumphant and pleased one like the other conquering vikings. This might just be because he is reminded of his own village being ransacked when he was a child, but I really think this is Robert Eggers and Alexander Skarsgård portraying Amleth as somewhat of a conflicted conquerer, that he does not necessarily get off on this level of brutality but he feels it is only necessary for him to eventually get to Fjölnir. Also, this level of brutality is all he has known and grown up with, so it would be difficult for him to divorce himself completely from it.

I agree with your broader argument here, and I loved the movie for the record. The bigger issue as I see it is that Amleth's quest for revenge isn't meaningfully challenged in the third act. Amleth is made a child killer, whether through self defence or not, but it happens with no fanfare. The child dies and Amleth moves on. There's no chance for guilt or self-reflection. What's even more surprising is that Amleth actually gets to kill his nemesis in glorious battle. How many revenge movies allow that? If you consider the best in the genre, the third act hinges on a gut wrenching subversion. By this metric, can The Northman even be considered anti-revenge? I thought the complicating factor in the third act would be Amleth discovering that his feelings for his mother weren't exactly...familial. The film hinted toward this during her monologue, but did nothing with it. I think the entire third act all just plays out in the safest way imaginable.

As someone who has seen this film 3 times, every choice and every Act works well for me…but I do see your point about the handling of Gunnar’s death. Even since the first screening I knew once Amleth swims from the ship, that he would have to kill Gudrun and Gunnar. I mean, if this is the framing of protecting Olga and his children he had to ensure their deaths that way Gunnar doesn’t come back (I like it as the whole breaking away from the perpetuating cycle of hatred; he has to not create another revenge in Gunnar but his choice to do this is more so about protecting his kids than believing he can’t fully escape his fate). Perhaps a small rewrite would have made a clearer choice? For instance Gunnar still hops on and stabs Amleth but Amleth in his own adrenaline and instinct still does the same swing the kid off of him AND his sword still hits Gunnar. Perhaps instead of that swing killing Gunnar it mortally wounds him? Now Amleth looks at the child, the innocent he saved earlier, in pain and bleeding out. Maybe he see Gunnar’s eyes full of the same hate and pain he recognized himself having when his father died? But Amleth still needs to stop all of this. So Amleth has a beat, he needs to protect his family and put this kid out of his misery. Amleth then chooses to do both and stab Gunnar with a killing blow and stays with him until he’s dead? Great vid as always bro.

@smegmatic308

2 жыл бұрын

That would be a better scene. As it is, the death of Gunnar feels forced and cheap. Like he couldn't have just swung his brother off his back or backed into a wall

I think there is one very important thing to remember that is easy to forget: Amleth does have a moral code and he is not the same as Fjolnir and Gudrun. His morals are loose, but they exist. As stated, before learning the truth about his Mother's role in his Father's murder, Amleth states that he would be willing to take young Gunnar with him when he rescues his Mother. And, after learning the truth, Amleth says that he would never kill a woman, no matter how evil. This implies that even though Amleth has been shown to be a ruthless killer, he does have some sense of a moral code. He won't kill women and children. Even though the Raid that he takes part in results in the deaths of many women and children, Amleth himself is not the one who kills them. While this could be done in order to make Amleth less despicable as a character, historically speaking the Vikings actually were very respectful and protective towards women and children (contrary to popular belief). That's not to say that rape and murder of women and children didn't ever happen. It just wasn't as common as people like to believe. This video goes more in-depth on that subject: kzread.info/dash/bejne/i62IrtihiZXQoMo.html So, when Amleth does kill his mother and Gunnar, it is purely in self-defense. Yes, he was attacking the farm and killing the rest of Fjolnir's men, so they had no way of knowing that he intended to spare them. Thus, they had every reason to attack him. Nevertheless, they did force his hand. And, after killing them, the look on Amleth's face is complete devastation. This was not what he wanted at all. It's at this moment that Fjolnir enters and sees his dead wife and son. What's interesting about this moment is that Amleth does not try to explain himself. It doesn't matter that they were killed in self-defense, Amleth and Fjolnir were already on a collision course, and when they agree to meet at "The Gates of Hel" you can see this sort of acceptance in Amleth's eyes. This is the point of no return. Again, it is important to note that just because Fjolnir and Gudrun were willing to go to such extremes does not mean that Amleth is the same. For example, when Amleth witnesses Flonir attempting to rape Olga, Amleth refers to him as a coward. This does lead to the question of what Amleth would have done about Gudrun and Gunnar. My best guess would be that he intended to kill Fjolnir and his men and spare Gudrun and Gunnar. Maybe he was just willing to leave that loose end open. The video link I provided shows that this would not be out of character for some Vikings. If anything I would say that the film's real flaw was NOT SHOWING more Vikings with the same morals as Amleth.

In the beginning of the movie, he helped attack the village and burn the women and children to death, and he drank while surviving women were raped in front of him. So his conscience was probably numb enough by that point that killing the kid wasn’t this huge deal

@Ramsey276one

2 жыл бұрын

YIKES

To add to your point about Fjolnir’s character arc, he’s also shown to be a very wise leader. It really drives home the theme that revenge is entirely personal and subjective. By all accounts, Aurvandiil seems like he was a pretty shit king. Slaver(I know, not a big deal for the time) and warlord. We see him returning from a conquest on the brink of death, he’s deposed by his brother with seemingly zero resistance, and he’s known throughout their world as “The disgraced king”. Fjolnir’s men have stayed with him all these years. We’re given no indication that his children love him any less than Amleth loved the War-Raven. He gives the slaves important duties to bolster their confidence while also maintaining the hierarchy of the farm. If you weren’t conditioned to root for the protagonist, you’d probably think “damn, Amleth is kind of dickhead.” How many fathers and sons has he slaughtered? He “inherited [his] father’s simpleness”.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

👆👆👆👆👆

@keeran697

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it does a good job of showing how horrible it was to live in that world for pretty much everyone, whether you had power or not. It does not glamorize .

I don't agree. I think the 'prophecies' he is told by the witches at points in the movie make everything fit just fine. The whole thing to me felt like an epic poem pulled from the ground they put to screen, warts and all.

10:50 Valhalla isn’t a place of heroes, but of ‘heroic’ warriors… Crusaders would be proud. Though I guess this doesn’t disprove your point.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

That actually may be a point towards the miscommunication of Viking culture to the audience. I imagine most would view the scene as Amleth ascending to a "heaven" of sorts, thus the fact that he just killed an innocent child doesn't mesh with this BUT if it was simply due to the fact that he went out swords clashing, then it would make more sense. However, like you said, I don't know if, given Gunnar's death, if he is still all that "heroic" by the finale.

@usmansubhani7482

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling Vagueness like that is a sin for storytelling. You can’t misrepresent the world after sticking so close to it for so long. Completely get your point.

Hi Mr. Macabre!! I have an idea for how the Valhalla ending could work but it changes the majority of the movie's 2nd half. I imagine a movie where everything fell apart for Olga and Amleth. Their plans didn't go right, Amleth finds out he's not as noble as he thought, the guards overpower and outnumber them, and Amleth finds out Olga's pregnant WHILE they're getting the most bombarded because she gets wounded and all the weird blood vision stuff happened while there. This becomes his motivation and his source of energy to power through everyone and escape. That in itself would be the third act. Buttttt When both are on the ending boat, that's where Amleth realizes that he hurt and killed many people who'd now want to take revenge on him and those around him. I can imagine Amleth telling her something vague like "I'll protect our kids lmao" before diving out of the boat instead of telling her that he'll kill Fjolnir. Amleth can there now surrender himself to be punished for his wrongdoings, and once he's executed, he rises to Valhol because he's changed into a more moral person. I hope you like my version!! I personally believe that this is the ending Eggers should've gone for if the whole "test-screenings-didnt-like-child-murder" thing was actually real and was cornering his vision.

I'd have to disagree, cus there's one single line that, for me, is the most significant piece of the puzzle. When Amleth finds out Olga is pregnate, he remembers the proffecy where he was told he'd either have to sacrifice himself for either His vengance or ti protect his kind, and to that he says he chooses both. Now, considering how all of Robert Eggers movies are framed More as psicological studies on this deranged historical figures (and this one is no different), you might as well interpret the proffecies, the visions and everything supernatural as all in his head. It's the ambiguety of the proffecies that makes you question "does sacrifice actually mean you have to kill your uncle still?", and so regardless of the dissonance at the End, or even because of It, I feel the ending Is actually apropriate, since Amleth uses the excuse to protect his kind to fullfill his desire to kill Fjormir. Sort of reminded me of Thorfinn on the first season of Vinland Saga, where his whole objetive Is to kill the Man who killed his father, and thus he goes to great lengts to keep him alive, and tho he has the option to move on, he's never known nothing else and thus not fullfilling his vengance would leave him empty because that's the only thing he knows. I think it's the same for Amleth, he can live a happy life but really he doesn't want to, he thinks his responsability as a man and a warrior Is to kill and ascend to valhalla as the warrior he Is. His final vision of Olga I see them in the same way as the excuses Tony Soprano uses to justify having killed Christopher and Ralph Cifaretto, he convinces himself that he do It for a greater good but in reallity It was just His bloodlust that got the Best of him.

The movie should've ended like this: Amleth and Fjölnir duke it out on a volcano like they did in the film, but Amleth loses the will to live because he realizes his cause is no longer just, realizing he is no better than the man he swore vengeance towards: A child killer who burnt a village to the ground. This leads to Fjölnir winning the fight and killing Amleth, his motivation for vengeance ironically being more justified than Amleth.

@bumptiousbuffoon7824

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know that this would be true to the world established in the film. In that world, Amleth has done his duty by securing the safety of his bloodline. Even if his original cause wasn't just - and even that is questionable, based on the honor system of his world - he would absolutely feel justified in seeing it through to prevent others seeking revenge on his children.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Which would have been pretty based, if Amleth, this man we have been following and even sympathizing with, we realize was so hell bent on achieving his "fate" he becomes a total monster, thus making the audience second guess them rooting for him, which is what it seemed like the entire twist with the revelation about his mother meant to do as well.

The comparison to Ellie is weak because Gunnr and the mother are the only two characters Amleth actually kills in self defense. Amleth kills tons of other people throughout the film with very clear intentions to mess with Fjolnir, not to mention emotionally manipulating Fjolnir into killing his own servants out of paranoia.

It’s basically hamlet where the freudian subtext is text, except it doesn’t take the last step and fulfil the protagonist’s Oedipal urge. In hamlet that makes sense because hamlet’s main characteristic is being an indecisive man faced with a need for action whereas here we have a very decisive man faced with a need for indecision- or reevaluating his decision. The arch is never completed. The story needed to take that one further step to reach the catalytic tragic point but it didn’t and all the creative violence didn’t make up for it. I’m not sure in which direction that one step should have been, but I know that it was missing.

I think it still works in a thematic sense. "Revenge has collateral damage". Here's my interpretation: I think Amleth even knows going into the final battle that he's going to die and acknowledges that he should. He recites his mantra partially out of denial, and hallucinates his ascencion to Valhalla. I get the vibe that this was the intent, regardless of how it was constructed to be as squeaky clean as possible. The ending shot can be a bit incongruent, but I don't find it to be a dealbreaker. Yeah, the movie could have gone to better lengths to articulate what I assume the movie was putting down, but I think it's a solid 8/10 at the end of the day. The climax was metal as fuck, though

9:45 Maybe they should have had the guts to have the protagonist assassinate a child like, well, Guts in Berserk?

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

B-b-based

The actor who plays young amleth was outstanding

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Preach

One aspect of your criticism I don't entirely get is that you seem to think that ascending to valhalla is a "heroic" ending. I myself see it as just another aspect of viking culture, dying in battle takes you there.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Someone else commented the same, and while I definitely agree that ascending to Valhalla isn't in and of itself disqualified by his actions in the final act 1.) I think this may be lost on most who watch the film and is a decent argument as to Egger's not properly communicating this aspect of Viking culture to the audience and 2.) despite this, the ending still gives an "uplifting" tone, despite the fact that Amleth just slaughtered an innocent child not a few minutes before the ending.

@bumptiousbuffoon7824

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling In that case, is your complaint that they backed down from having Amleth deliberately slaughter Gunnar, or is it that they presented Amleth in a heroic light after he killed the child? It's not clear from the video which of these issues would cure the fatal flaw, if fixed.

@Manas09rai

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling while I agree that the tone is somewhat uplifting in the moment. At least for me I didn't see him slaughtering a child as some commentary on amleth having to do a bad thing to make his children safe. I saw it as an inevitability in the path of vengeance, to me at least the film highlighted pretty well how vengeance always hurts people who are in the way and we often don't have the foresight to stop ourselves from our worst impulses. I saw the ending as a relief for Amleth because come what may, it's over and he finally gets to rest.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

@@bumptiousbuffoon7824 I think either or. If they just went balls to the wall and had Amleth kill Gunnar intentionally, in cold blood, then that would make the audience have to view Amleth in that light, as someone who, due to his own actions, was forced to kill and innocent child to put an end to it all. OR if they kept Gunnar's death as it is, but then had him reflect on this come his death, that he died as no better than those he was hunting, that would be fine too. OR if as some have said, if the ending painted him as completely delusional, lost in his own fantasy of avenging a father he hardly knew, that would work too, but it seemed like the narrative couldn't decide on which way to go with and ended up getting lost.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Well that is sort of the issue. Given all Amleth did, SHOULD he have been given such a relief. All things considered, he died on top from his own perspective, in that he accomplished his mission and protected his family.

This video reminds me of what my brother said when I said La La Land sat really poorly for me, how it feels horrific how this city seems to swallow everyone up with the veneer of a song and dance. He said "I hate to break it to you, but I think you just understand the movie very well." I think The Northman, in a sense, hates itself. Rather than playing into the catharsis of revenge, it makes you despise its eventualities. And I'd argue this as a thematic spine for the movie, not purely concessions to studios. There's the first major siege scene at the beginning of the film that really got me. Seeing Skarsgard scream into the screen and lay siege to a village felt so damn cool and badass, but then the camera keeps on going to show weeping children and assaulted/enslaved women. The damn thing tricked me into thinking this was going to be a cool fun scene, but it made the violence sour in my stomach. I would argue that the ending is the feeling of this scene writ large. Skarsgard tells himself a nice little story about how his lineage will live on (important theming throughout the movie anyways) and responds to violence the only way he can: with more violence. It is messy and cruel and unsatisfying, because violence is wrong, because the desire for violence to burn itself out should be sickening. I think you're supposed to hate the guy that kills his mom, the only man who ever loved her, and his innocent half-brother. I don't think you're supposed to agree with him, until the ascension to Valhalla is absurd, because it is.

I think I like the hero becoming monster is still working. It also shows that he was never really a hero. He was just a man pretending to be a mythical legend following his “destiny” instead of enjoying what he has and living life a new man as opposed to a legend of vengeance. He choose brutality and glory over his family. Which is potentially what Fuelnor had done in the past. Could he have escaped into the world with his queen and lived the life he ended up living anyway with goats on a far away island? He was a force of revenge for his past pain and the pains of others. But then rather than accepting the truth of his life being ruined being a tragedy he can’t fix through his blood lust, he chooses to be a beast like during the tribal scenes over going off to enjoy his life with his women and children. I definitely don’t see this as a 10/10 film because it does have some scenes that hold off these decisions till later so that he doesn’t reach the climax before the twist happens. So honestly I don’t hate the ending, but it’s not a morally fulfilling ending but an aesthetic ending that feeds into our love of a crazy and greedy ending over taking responsibility of most of the audience missing the fact that he has become the monster he swore to destroy.

I think you’re taking the ending just a bit too much at face value rather than seeing it as subversive in the spirit of the rest of the film. Remember how we see the Valkyrie both after he’s just killed his mom and Gunnar and after he’s died fighting Fjönir? He’s actually pretty stoked to be dead and going to Valhalla- especially after his revenge quest imploding- that’s all his culture and tragic life has given him to desire. Olga tries to win Amleth over to the side of life, sex, nature, children, but he very abruptly gives in to his worst impulse to embrace the crazy death-cult he was raised in, even after he’s seen first hand how twisted and wrong it is. The idea that he is “protecting his family” is a flimsy pretext and we’re supposed to think it kind of unnecessary. Really he just wants to die as he’s been trained to do. It ends with this hellish fight where they are both naked and almost indistinguishable in the smoke and lava. Not the epic triumph we might have expected. It’s actually a lot like Last of Us 2 in that respect- there’s something that feels wrong narratively about him just going back to seek revenge especially when he’s set up with a clearly preferable alternative (Olga, cf Dinah). But that’s what makes it an “interesting choice” and gets us thinking twice about whether we even want to see them take revenge. I do like your idea about Gunnar better than what we see in the film but I think I could defend the intention behind the scene as is. It doesn’t strike me as a cigar-chomping producer’s decision but maybe we’ll find out it was someday.

Holy crap, you totally nailed it. I went into this video thinking I was going to disagree with you about there being a fatal flaw because imo I thought this film was perfect. But instead I have to agree with you! I do think the way that death happened is a fatal flaw of this movie. It totally is. Poor Robert Eggers not getting to tell the story he really wanted to. It's a shame. I'd totally buy the director's cut to find out if this was the true vision for the fIlm. Hope he makes one.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

I really hope there will be one. I can’t imagine their won’t be unless the editing process just burned him out so much.

the way i read it was amleth did not intend to kill gunnar in that moment, but may have intended on killing him but had not confronted the thought yet

The thing about them fighting to the death at the end , and the handling of Gunnar is heavily tied to their culture. Amleth didn't just seek vengeance because he felt Fjollnir was in the wrong, he literally had a sacred duty to seek blood revenge for his murdered father. The duty of blood revenge doesn't care whether the murder was justified or not. He may have looked over Gunnar because Gunnar had nothing to do with the blood vengeance. In fact, had Gunnar lived, Amleth may have also respected his right to seek vengeance in a battle as he did with Fjollnir. That battle just happened earlier than expected, and unfortunately Gunnar was a lot smaller and weaker (obviously). Regarding the final battle, it's less heroism and more that both Amleth and Fjollnir know that in order to be taken to Vallhalla, they both need to die in battle. So both of them had a motivation to do this, to both fulfill their duty to take revenge and to go to Vallhalla.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is that again Amleth would have needed to die and it wouldn’t have mattered if Amleth killed him in cold blood thus it feels like a cop out.

As much as I adored this film, I'm very grateful for this exceptionally well parsed take... Morality twists are some of my all time favs, thanks dude.

I read an Icelandic Edda where a man had to kill his best friend who committed manslaughter against the first's family member. It was tragic because they both loved each other almost like brothers, but one was obligated to kill the other, even though the other killed someone as an "accident" (it is more complicated, but suffice to say, even the other knew his friend had little choice but to commit manslaughter). . What I remember most about the story was how it ended. They both ended up in the water and one pulled down the pants of the other... and then killed him. It was almost farcical. He then honored his friend in a funeral. This is just a different culture, and it overly simplistic to put our own culture and mores onto another culture that saw the world in a very different way. Many of the Icelandic Eddas were surprisingly ambiguous about its protagonists and antagonists and could have sympathy for both sides. It was seen as just the tragedy that life sometimes brings. I wouldn't call it nihilistic, but sometimes the attitude is more like "well, shit happens".

Old Norse plot fail = Blame it on the magic sword. Medieval plot fail = Blame it on monks inserting Christian themes. Modern Screen plot fail = Interfering studio execs 🙂

I don't think Amleth had to kill Gunnar. Gunnar might have come looking for him had he succeeded in his vengeance just as Amleth did, but that's only if he lived and rejoined his family. With Amleth dead, his father doesn't need to be avenged. Might Gunnar still go after Olga and the kids? Maybe, but not with the same supposed righteousness and honour that Amleth did.

I think its more about the hubris of violence in a way. He could have fled with olga and just dealt with his uncle and half brother if/when it cane to that and he could have been happy and spent time with his children in that time. Instead he chose violence and achieved what he set out to do, but he still died. Still through his life away

We missed a better Anakin Skywalker and a 10/10 movie because 'We want a hero's ending'

I got the impression that Amleth wasn't planning to come back when he leaves the ship to kill his uncle which I think would solve your dilema of his half-brother's death. If Amleth was killed then their would be no need revenge which I think is what he means with "choosing both" as in killing his uncle for hatred for his enemies, and dying and by doing so protecting his family from revenge for kindness for his kin. Though I guess a better explanation would be studio interference... One thing I feel I need to point out though, Ampleth doesn't get a "hero's death" as we understand it (he gets a hero's death by viking standarts but those are very different from the ones we have today), he gets a warrior's death. and he is brought to Valhalla along with his uncle as they both died in battle.

I think its the classic example of studios wanting to make the hero not too unsympathetic and that's why it's incoherent

The ending is not dissonant or cowardly, many ancient stories have morally ambiguous elements like this.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Again, the moral ambiguity is fine, but the death of Gunnar sully's this since Amleth killing Gunnar wouldn't have made a difference towards his ascension.

Could this be a meta-revenge story about a film enthusiast turned aspiring writer who writes the "perfect story" and sees it on screen only to realize that the final act of that story falls flat on its face and the studio was like "we did that on purpose so none of those ungrateful _maggots_ could ever be corrupted by that story of yours and overthrow the society that WE made"?

@nathanlevesque7812

2 жыл бұрын

cringe...

Awesome vid man, hoping you do dune 2021 at some point as its another amazing movie with a deeply flawed story

I thought this movie was a pure miss. The third act was where it went off the rails for me too, but, it had lost me earlier. I thought the early berserker and pillaging scenes were borderline unwatchable - I get that the director wanted to show how brutal and elite these warriors were, but it missed bad and came off…kinda childishly. I appreciated that it was comic book-ish, but it failed on so many other levels that my suspension of disbelief was just gone by act 3, and I was just hoping for a satisfying ending. That, unfortunately, failed too

@smegmatic308

2 жыл бұрын

It was boring and hard to sympathize with anybody

Coming pretty late to the party here, and I didn't know about the studio changes, but I read the ending quite differently. Like you said the film portrays a brutal world. It examines the lives of some of those who live in, it and the indoctrination needed to exist in it (the father/son bonding and the religious stuff). The basic story is that of the wronged prince coming back to get his revenge and reclaim his birthright, but the 'glory' of that narrative is constantly undercut by the film, with what is basically patheticness. The 'kings' are warlord slavers who rule over a tiny mud-hut village because they convinced a dozen or so armed goons to follow their orders. The prince grew up to become a goon slaver himself, a brutal, lost, and bloodthirsty man who revels in murder with his other goon friends (wolf stuff). And when he actually gets his revenge, the film portrays him as the maniac home invader who comes into your house to kill your family. (from the media-stoked fear, not that this is a common everyday character) That's what I got from the Gunnar death scene, that Amleth didn't want to kill him (and maybe he should according to his own motivations, but he is not the brightest bulb in the shed, and more on that below) but he ended up doing it because revenge quests and wanton violence tend to have accidental, innocent victims. He had just become that pathetic maniac at the end. I don't believe the film even portrays him as doing a good thing for his family when he decides to go back and kill Fjölnir. I saw it as portraying him as the revenge man who abandons his family to go do revenge. They were fucking off to who knows where! How could Fjölnir or Gunnar ever find them? I believe when Amleth faced the choice of living peacefully and raising his children or dying in glorious revenge, he chose the latter because violence is all he knew. And just gave himself the pretense/justification of saving his family. I didn't see the final battle as a glorious way to set things right either. I saw two broken, brainwashed men having lost all and fighting over nothing; or Valhalla I guess but we all know that doesn't exist. Basically what their society saw as manliness gave them no option but to kill each other. And the final vision, was just Amleth's brain shutting down. An ironic little note to end on, his reward for his goon, slaver, bloodthirsty existence. That's all he got for it at the end. When he could be 'making more children' with Anya Taylor Joy. Anyway, that's what I got from it. Maybe/probably the original cut was even better.

I loved and currently still love it, but for me I only realized something felt off when he won the fight in the end but couldn't put my finger on it. Wonderful elaboration as always.

Interesting take and great examination of the film overall, but I fear the speculation of the Gunnar thing being changed in post production may be a reach. I have a friend who caught early test screenings and while his memory isn't perfect, he doesn't recall it happening any differently. It sounds like a lot of the editing work Eggers complained about was re-recording the dialogue to dumb it down and make it less dense for audiences to follow along with. Which tracks as something he would've justifiably hated enough to complain about on social media, as changing the dialogue to fit already-filmed scenes is ludicrous, and yeah, what we get does definitely feel far less dense and period appropriate than what Eggers usually puts out. Given what's already on the screen, I kinda doubt a more intense/less ambiguous version of Gunnar's killing would've been what the studio took issue with. I was actually thinking that what your examination was going to lead into was that the ideal ending would've been (SPOILERS) . . . Amleth outright losing his duel with Fjalnir. . . . (END SPOILER)

I think Amleth being temporarily shocked and regretful of accidentally killing Gunnar is because of the context. Before, Amleth didn't care when the band of berserkers he worked with slaughtered and burned children alive because he had no children of his own. He had no one but him and his vengeance. That changes when he meets Olga and learns that he's about to become a father. I think that was why Amleth was regretful of Gunnar's death, where earlier in the story he wouldn't have given a damn.

IDK I didn't think amleth was portrayed as heroic in the final act, I thought it was his own delusion and ego leading him to abandon his children and SO. Especially since the movie seemed to be critiquing toxic masculinity near explicitly. Especially especially since the magic elements of the film are intentionally vague as to be real or not (the only non explainable mystical element is the sword), so it's entirely possible to view the valhala scene and future scene as just his delusion like a certain valhala scene earlier in the film. Then the movie becomes a tragedy of people caught up in the delusions of a bloodthirsty culture. Edit: I agree he probably should've had to intentionally kill gunner.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

I thought that as well and I actually think that could have worked as an ending, if he was framed as a delusional nutcase in the end... but I think it isn't communicated that well to the audience.

Kind of ironic for the channel 'macabre storytelling' to whine about how the movie didn't have a traditional moral center. It is a pre rational/scientific method time where over the hills there were giants and sea monsters lived underneath the waves. In the honor culture depicted in the movie, Amleth is a purely good hero who successfully preserved his family's honor with heroic sacrifice.

This movie felt sometimes like a classic epic film/tv serie and sometimes like you're reading a myth but visualized like they did with The Green Knight, i felt it's hard to be both at the same time. The film has it's flaws but it's something different and I think that this film can be really interesting with a commentary talking about the myths and things we don't know about this culture.

@SquatsAndOats2plate

2 жыл бұрын

I highly recommend watching Andrei Rublev, a soviet film from which Eggers took heavy inspiration, especially the village raid scene and brutality of it are almost an hommage. This and many other russian classics are available in HD fully subbed on youtube. kzread.info/dash/bejne/nJlrl6h9msa7gJc.html

@aliendrone

2 жыл бұрын

@@SquatsAndOats2plate thanks for the recommendation! I haven't seen any Tarkovsky movie yet! I want to watch Solaris and Stalker, I will add this one too!

I think I agree with you that the scene where he kills the kid seems changed somehow. I wouldn't be surprised if originally he purposefully killed him but had to change it into something a bit more ambiguous. His face after the fact would fit both scenes too. Both a man capable of killing a kid like that and a man who is horrified that he just accidentally killed his half brother. The way it happens is very weird too. You could just as easily argue for both interpretations. Something else that smelled like studio interference to me was the scene where they find the 2 dead guys arranged like what I think is supposed to be a horse. They show it on screen for half a second and then it feels like the camera is purposefully keeping it out of the shot. Which if you watch The Witch and The Lighthouse, that's the opposite of what you would expect from this director. He seems to like to make people uncomfortable and make you look at "the thing".

The part at the farm is a bit long, but very interesting : we start with another "initiatic voyage" with lots of learning and strange moments of magic and weird reality, and we almost have a horror movie, where the monster comes, night after night, eating another member of the family, and everyone descend into deep madness and paranoïa. It reminds me of Beowulf, at Hrothgard's castle, when Grendel comes every night, before Beowulf and his lads appears and fight him. The end of this part is either very violent, and a masterpiece of writing and dialog, and set the pieces for the last part (Nicole Kidman is a wonderful evil queen, in this scene). The alchemy between Amleth and Olga is magical, and it's a huge pay off. The combat scene we have later on is very intense, and we are in it til the last second, but we feel a little disappointed in the end because of you know what (yes, no spoil here). That the overall critic of the Northman, in my opinion : well realised, a lot of heart in the process to make a good movie, a psychodelic expercience at some point, not that lot of action, yet very intense tension, and big surprises. But a little disappointment, still.

Was amleth going to Valhalla a heros death? Or was it simply, every viking that dies in battle gets to go into Valhalla? Thinking of it that way, even amleths enemies will be waiting for him in that hall

It’s definitely more of a contrivance to have Gunnar’s death be the result of an accident, but I also didn’t necessarily mind that. I don’t know if Amleth would have intended on killing Gunnar either. I think it would have been interesting to have it play out as more of a Kill Bill Vol. 1 scenario when Beatrix kills Vernita Green. The death of the parent being out of revenge, but leaving her daughter Nikki the opportunity to exact her own vengeance down the line. Fjolnir was the immediate threat. Thematically, this would have supported what the film had been doing up until that point, but I also get the need to tidy up the loose ends of leaving Gunnar alive. Ultimately, it’s cleaner that way and it gives it more of an air of a classic tragedy.

Can’t say I fully agree here. I think the third act as it is works perfectly for me. I do think the edit of the scene of him killing Gunnar is definitely clunky and could have been better. I don’t think anything about Amleth is meant to be considered heroic except for maybe his reveal to Fjolnir to let Olga escape. Even then, he absolutely still has the opportunity to have a life with a family and even have a little revenge by killing his cousin and kind of fucking with his uncle. And he still just can’t help but turn to redemptive violence thinking it’s the only way his family will be safe. Sort of portraying the brutality of it all as being really self-destructive (is that a word?) I really don’t think he has any reluctance about killing Gunnar since we see him earlier in the film slaughter a whole village and burn the children alive without really being bothered by it. Again, not really a hero. Just Eggers doing a really great telling of an old tale with a more modern interpretation that being a remorseless bloodshot psycho is not good.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I think my contention is not making it clear if he intended to kill Gunnar. If it wasn’t about him being a hero, then having him slaughter Gunner in cold blood should have made no difference.

Good analysis as most of the videos I have seen from you. I agree that the script doesn't put more in question that for keeping safe her dynasty Amleth must kill Gunnar but well they can of solve it far the hurry of the situation (maybe a little week) and also in my opinion was quite harmful for the script some over the top gore scene's like when Amleth restrains the priestess with the guts of a man while freeing a slave... like wtf how did you got the time to do that and keep it quiet? But the 3rd act still holds to me because I read it more as the norse way of thinking and normally the principal theme is to full fill your destiny quite remarked in the posters " conquer your destiny" and most important honour your family, rather the morality of vengeance because every character in this movie without exception has some level of questionable morality even the child Gunnar in a way you can see a potential viking psychopath and the movie makes a good work to develop all characters in a way that doesn't brake your immersion and that's more important to me. That the movie made Amleth a hero mmmeh its quite a subjective debate but as I see this movie tries to respect the norse sagas were really flawed individuals still deserve respect and epic end for how bold and honourable lives they had. I made some research of the original story of Amleth and well it's waay more different from the movie like Amleth kills his uncle between the first part and half, the other half is him getting married 2 times and get killed (old stories would not survive a modern producers read) that for me explains some artistic contention as it has been mentioned in some comments and why there are some flaws. I don't think its a great story but I would say that this film is a master piece of how to respect history for what it is as terrible can be and adapt your story to that period and not the opposite (what for me it's usually worst). Not as master piece as master and commander but shiiit this movie is an orgasm for Viking archeologists and as imperfect as it may be I really appreciate that they put the effort to resemble the dialogue as close as how the norse talk on the poems of old (I recommend the wanderer). So yeah fun and yet pretty good movie that challenge's the viewer and the most accurate media of the viking period I ever seen.

It’s not good guy versus bad guy, it’s just a duel between two people with their own motivations and bad things they’ve done.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Except if that is the case there should have been no reason to not have Amleth kill Gunnar in cold blood.

@giraffe357

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling I disagree but I respect your opinion

I agree with your take - while watching I interpreted it as Amleth live editing his reality to make himself more Viking heroic

Say whatever you want about this movie but we all know every single movie ever made would be made better with a badass duel to the death on the edge of a volcano

Read Saxo grammaticus and sagas and you Will understand this isnt a modern way of telling a story only its a modern media format.this might as well been written during the Early middle ages or high. For those who are history geeks like me and Read Scandinavian literature its story makes as much Sense as any of those of old its the same style which is amazing to see on film .daring and absolutely amazing something id never thought Id see

This movie had some of the worst combat I've ever seen in a supposedly serious film. It was worse than the 13th warrior. A group of about 15 guys with no defenses run across an open feild while archers fire and miss them. They then scale by hand the palisade wall, and since the archers can't hit a target from 20 feet away, they decide to not bother attacking thier foes directly underneath them. And apparently the wall guards have no other weapons to defend with. Then the raiders rush in an encounter armed and armored men...they don't even fight back, just running themselves onto the swords of the raiders, who proceed to slaughter a dozen each.

@smegmatic308

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah. That scene was very disappointing

I really liked the moral gray area at the end. It didnt bother me. The final fight reminded me of the lion king fight as well, but I appreciated how i could imagine both characters as the evil antagonist in the others narrative

I have a feeling that this film wanted to be Gladiator in some way, however Gladiator works because when Maximus and Commdus met again at the arena in a attempt to kill one or the other, they are stopped by Lucille’s nephew Lucius, who both has an admiration for Maximus and love for his uncle despite not knowing what type of ruler he is. And it’s only until Commodus’s “busy little bees” monologue, does Lucius somewhat puts two-and-two together and realizes that his uncle is no good.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

Definitely feels like more conventional storytelling sort of poisoned the well in ya sense.

I think seeing the ascension scene through our Western, modern, and Christian-influenced eyes might cause it to seem nonsensical. But if you interperet it through THEIR eyes, steeped in nordic religion and culture, it all makes sense. Amleth is worthy of Valhalla despite everything he did because his purpose for doing what he did was always heroic, especially after he discovered that Olga was pregnant. If you dig a bit, learn about what it meant to be "taken to Valhalla" (spoiler, it's nothing like going to christian heaven) and watch the scene "scandinavianized," then there's no doubt that it was earned. I think he knew he would have to kill his young half-brother, I think what we see in that scene is him bungling the fuck out of what he hoped would be a quiet die-in-their-sleep-throats-opened assassination with his lumbering berserker ass. That's why he looks all shocked when he actually kills him (and her) because he probably didn't plan for it to go down like that bad.

Amleth realised that he could either spend the rest of his life watching over his children & risk them dying at some point when his back was turned the way he killed his cousin in his sleep or put an end to the cycle then and there by taking care of his uncle. He never anticipated the complication that he would kill his mother and half-brother in reflex & hence he's horrified by what he's done + realises that he has lost his honor, his uncle realises the same coz he failed to protect his family. The only way to regain their honor was the volcano duel & they get what they want.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

That seems rather farfetched. How could Amleth NOT anticipate that Gunnar may grow up and hunt him and his children down... when that is exactly what Amleth himself did?

@janeshepard9549

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling Well, his mother explicitly states that she would cling on to another king and raise his half-brother if his uncle dies. He came to the Chief's hut to kill Fjolnir but ended up making a mess.

How much more interesting would it be if Gunnar ran away at the end and got on a boat…starting the cycle again?

I completely agree with u on the fact that Amleth had to kill Gunnar. Love d ur lou2 vid btw. The only way for me to explain it is that Gunnar was part of the evil” seed of her mother and fjolnir. Yes, he need to die because if he survives he will try to kill Olga. For me it works because he’s, it felt like self defense and all of them felt evil. Though I agree the 3 recontextualizes fjolnir, I still think Amleth is the better man and changed his fate. But still agree with u a 100 percent

I think the fact that his mother was screaming when Fjolnir took her is probably evidence that what she told Amleth is a sign of Stockholm syndrome. Besides that I think it's best to view the morality of the story not through modern morality, but ancient pagan morality. In that Pagan morality, even if Amleth's father was the most vile man on earth, as long as he was faithful to the gods, should he be slain, it would be Amleth's duty to take vengeance of one sort or another (granted he could've asked for a wergild, but I doubt he was feeling like walking up to the man who ordered his death and asking for financial recompence for his father's murder.) I definitely however did not even think about the problem with Gunnar until you mentioned it. It seemed like Amleth never meant to kill Gunnar at all, perhaps because he wasn't thinking in terms of logic but in terms of honor. In that sense I guess we would assume that Amleth would either pull a baron harkonnen and leave Gunnar to die in the Icelandic wilderness, or let the former slaves kill him in vengeance or raise him. There was always the possibility Gunnar could've grown to be the same as Amleth and want vengeance, but I think part of the point was that that was not what fate had in mind, or if we are ignoring fate, than that was something that Amleth could not do with his honor in mind, and would simply have to let fate (by his own viewpoint if not literally) take control.

I feel like fjolnir riding to valhalla alongside amleth could make it more theme consistent, but im not sure if it would work

I think he was planning on killing Gunnar but was obviously hesitant and took advantage of committing the act in a heated passionate moment. Can’t think of a better way it could’ve been executed.

The movie ignoring amleth’s “evil” acts at the end is fine to me. From amleths perspective, he’s distraught at having to kill his mother and brother, but he buries it beneath his anger, and his death allows him to triumphantly ride to valhalla without ever being forced to contemplate his own evil

Also notice how the first 3rd of the film is the bulk of the trailer.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

True. I understand that since the second act is a bit slower and subversive they wanted to feature more of the action scenes found in the first act, particularly the village raid, BUT it does seem a bit uneven.

I heard people praising this movie all over. Maybe I just don't get it, but I kinda found it boring, with its best part being the beginning. For those who watch anime, I believe Vinland Saga has done a better job making the same story much much more interesting and worth watching.

Look: I love you, and I understand Eggers may have a different vision, however, I think there are enough hints throughout the film that point to a "flawed narrator" of sorts, trapped by the personal and cultural narratives that have shaped his life, a major theme of the film. And I think, in this instance, you may be subject to the same flaw. The sword battle with the undead is the key to pointing out that not all is to be taken literally, and so things such as the kissing his mother, the crow rescuers, and subsequent Valkyrie rescue are his interpretation of reality. It is obvious the Valkyrie in the rescue scene is a product of his imagination, therefore it is likely the Valkyrie in the final scene is also intended to be this way. I think the trip to Valhalla was not intended to be taken as anything other than the dying delusions of a man tragically unable to change; for to change would be to re-contextualize his entire life story, thus rendering him devoid of meaning/purpose. Think "Memento," or "American Psycho" to a lesser extent, in which the protagonist's selfish need for purpose outweighs morality. Had the film been set modern-day, it might have concluded with a suicide bomber greeted by 72 virgins. I'll still like your video as I enjoy your content, but this is a 10/10 film. Will be 11+/10 if Eggers gets his way because in my post-modern, cognitively dissonant version of reality IMDb will let me do that with film scores, and I will kill any small child that stabs me repeatedly in my massive traps to protect that belief. (P.S. That kid died to demonstrate the tragic consequences of the protagonist's flawed, yet necessary, belief system).

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is that even if this is a valid interpretation, the final act is still framed as a heroic one for Amleth. He does not return to simply take vengeance, but out of a desire to protect his family, however the film doesn't grapple with the more morally dubious role that Amleth played in setting up said scenario, thus the thematically dissonant final act.

@benjaminl429

2 жыл бұрын

@@MacabreStorytelling I would argue that is because Amleth doesn't view himself as anything other than a hero. As the film is framed through his perspective lens alone, this shows only that he was delusional to the very end. I think the story is about the power of STORY itself, and its power over the human condition. I think Eggars has put a lot of faith in his audience to dwell on exactly why the morally dubious might appear thematically dissonant. Amleth's jumping into the ocean and swimming like a madman to shore upon being afforded a renewed sense of culturally-thematic purpose to his life (in the form of protecting his unborn) shows just how strong the pull of story and personal narrative to the individual truly is. I think this is the true tragedy of the film. Amleth will die, having never met his own children, as the THEORETICAL/NARRATIVE existence of his children is more important than the ACTUAL existence of his children. The tragedy is one of man's disconnection from reality in favor of the personal and cultural narratives that give our lives meaning. It is clear throughout the film that the most important thing to Amleth is family... however in reality what Amleth holds most important of all is the IDEA of a family which might serve his own narrative needs. And sure, his future children may not, in fact, ever be safe if he doesn't have a naked volcano fight. But you must remember that it was his personal/cultural beliefs that led him to kill his juvenile half-brother in the first place, thus rendering him doomed regardless... meaning he pretty much HAS to continue his flawed system of belief if only for the sake of his own sanity. 10/10. P.S. Robert Eggers if you happen to be reading this, tell him I'm right. Love your work mate.

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

@@benjaminl429 But this doesn't negate the fact the scenario is one in which objectively his family is in danger, he simply was the reason for putting them in said situation. But in any case if the film didn't want to portray him as completely not a monster in the end, then that makes the way Gunnar's death go down somewhat pointless, since Amleth could have killed him in cold blood and still convinced himself he was the hero and he was justified in doing so.

@benjaminl429

2 жыл бұрын

​@@MacabreStorytelling I think to some extent Amleth had a death wish, particularly when you consider that in Viking theology to attain Nirvana is to die in battle. Amleth was subject to that belief system: a system that provide him meaning, yet in doing so created in him a monster. With this in mind, perhaps it could be argued that Amleth created the situation in which he could "accidentally" kill young Gunnar, leaving him no choice other than to die in battle at a later date. It may seem a far fetch, but I'd argue folks fall prey to subconscious self-sabotage happens all the time. This allows Amleth gets to have his cake and eat it too. Plus if the narrator/protagonist is indeed unreliable, what's to say that in reality, he didn't just murder Gunnar in cold blood, only to interpret/portray his actions as those of self-defense? 10/10

@MacabreStorytelling

2 жыл бұрын

@@benjaminl429 I mean now we are getting into "but maybe" territory. I don't think asserting that the entire sequence where Amleth kills Gunnar is meant to be implied to have NOT actually happened and he killed him in cold blood. That seems like you are trying a bit TOO hard to fill the holes.

Even though Eggers was forced to 'dumb down' the movie, I think it said play much better to a medieval Norse audience and their sense of morality. FWIW I think that Fjolnir ascended to Valhalla alongside Amleth, as did Aurvandil

So, what if the movie just left out the vision of the future and ascension to Valhalla bit and just ended on the main character closing his eyes as he dies surrounded by fire? It leaves open the possibility of the guy going to Valhalla as he would have in a Norse saga but frames it in a way that from a modern viewing shows just how far he had fallen

I never thought of it like this. I just figured he accidentally killed Gunner to show how even with good intentions and a sense of justice, his need for revenge undermined his initial intentions and humanity. I mean, wouldn't it kind of undermine the point of the story if there was a "choreographed" killing of a child. The whole story had this psychoanalytic feel of Amleth's journey to "not be a beast but a man", and he failed, his beast side took over, so whether he does something deliberately or accidentally actually doesn't matter, because his need for revenge totally corrupted his free-will, his ability to make rational decisions and therefor his own agency and humanity. I'm also not so sure if we can read the ending as a reward. BUT! I liked the movie so I don't know if I agree with what I said above or if I'm just defending the movie because I liked the movie.

@yakuzzi35

2 жыл бұрын

Also, let's be honest, a lot of Shakespeare's plays end in a way which feels like someone who got bored playing the sims and decided to drown everyone in the pool

One of the things i liked about it is how real to the period and setting it felt, no real morals or logic just the brutality of the viking era.

@watch-Dominion-2018

8 ай бұрын

that's a lie tho, it was never like that

Olga falls in love with Amleth despite knowing that he was one of the dudes that invaded her home and enslaved her people, which seemed a bit odd to me

Very true. Would've been brutal if he stood over a sleeping gunnar, all quiet, then BAM. Movie seems pg-13 in comparison

Maybe you should analyse the first Conan Movie with James Earl Jones (in one of the best villain roles ever) for a kind of theme or something?

@osmanyousif7849

2 жыл бұрын

Or maybe Kill Bill (1&2), which definitely tackles vengeance much better in comparison to The Northman.

It would be a bad business decision to NOT release the directors cut

okay when i saw the movie i was a 100% certain that amleth is not the one that ascends to valhalla and i havent had the chance to watch It again but im still sure that thats what happens. I think the theme plays out something like "the gods arent always right" or whatever

Considering Eggers other works, I wouldn’t be surprised if Amleth was originally gonna kill his younger half bro more intentionally. Seems like a studio mandate kinda thing “okay, his morals can be questionable, but we can’t have the audience outright hate him for intentionally murdering a child.” Or maybe Eggers and/or Skarsgard felt that way as well. That Amleth needed at least a few lines he didn’t want to cross. Orrrrrrr Maybe Amleth was thinking about it, but didn’t want to tell Olga. Or it occurred to him later. And who says that accession is literal? It’s probably just in Amleth’s head.

@ajiththomas2465

Жыл бұрын

I think Amleth being temporarily shocked and regretful of accidentally killing Gunnar is because of the context. Before, Amleth didn't care when the band of berserkers he worked with slaughtered and burned children alive because he had no children of his own. He had no one but him and his vengeance. That changes when he meets Olga and learns that he's about to become a father. I think that was why Amleth was regretful of Gunnar's death, where earlier in the story he wouldn't have given a damn.

Praying for that director's cut

I really hope we get a good director's cut, with all of the dong left in. Apparently, horrific violence is fine, but only if we don't look at Willem Dafoe dong.

Don't do this to me Mac...

I love your videos even though you make me see the flaws of many movies that I originally rated higher before understanding your views. Just like when I thought The Departed was a perfect movie until you pointed out the massive flaws effectively changing my mind about it because you’re always right!!

Hot Take: This movie would have been better if he abandoned revenge. Too many movies where the hero dies and ignores important things because he is consumed by revenge. Give me a movie where the hero lets go of his rage and raises a happy wholesome family.

@osmanyousif7849

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, a good movie that did this was the 3rd Planet of the Apes movie. Caesar easily could’ve gotten his revenge on the Colonel for killing his family and the torture he suffered from him. But after seeing why the Colonel did what he did (despite the fact it doesn’t justify his actions), and how the Colonel in the end suffered the same fate, he realized that his vengeance will turn him into something he’s not, and decides against killing him.

underrated

I don't know anyone that's seen this movie... When I ask they haven't even heard of it. For me personally, it was the best film I've seen in a long time.